3 APRIL 2008
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) held in the
Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs C M Wilkins (Chairman)
E Seward (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs S A Arnold
M J M Baker
M R E Birch
Miss P E Ford
Mrs B McGoun
Miss C P Sheridan
B Smith
Miss L Walker
P J Willcox
B Cabbell Manners - Cromer Town Ward
K E Johnson - Cromer Town Ward
N P Ripley - Suffield Park Ward
V R Saunders - Runtons Ward
Mrs A M Tillett - Poppyland Ward
Officers:
Mr J Williams - Development Control Manager (East)
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mrs T Armitage - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Mr I Thompson - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Miss F Davies - Enabling Officer
Mr Goodwin - Internal Drainage Board
(266) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
There were no apologies for absence or substitute Members in attendance.
(267) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 6 March 2008 were approved as
a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(236) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to:
1.
An invitation to the Committee to visit HMP Lindholme, Lincolnshire to view a
similar prison to one to be proposed at RAF Coltishall.
Reason for urgency: to enable arrangements to be made for the visit.
2.
A planning application at Mundesley which was the subject of an appeal
against non-determination.
Reason for urgency: to inform the Planning Inspectorate of the decision that
the Committee would have made if it was within its power to do so.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
3 April 2008
(237) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs B McGoun, Mrs A M Tillett and P J Willcox declared interests, the
details of which are recorded under the minute of the item concerned.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and answered
Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(238) AYLMERTON - 20080300 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; site adjoining Breck
Lodge Holt Road for Westcrome Properties Limited
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Rampling (Aylmerton Parish Council)
Miss Bryan (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had no objection in
principle to this application but had raised a number of concerns regarding
dimensions, fenestration and lack of details of materials. She drew attention to the
comments of the Highway Authority.
Councillor N P Ripley spoke on behalf of Councillor V R Saunders, the local Member,
who had left the meeting prior to consideration of this application. Councillor
Saunders had questioned whether one further dwelling would make any difference to
the free flow and safety of traffic on the A148 and stated that there had been no
accidents at this location. He considered that the proposed dwelling would complete
the development in the row of dwellings and that it would be disproportionate to
refuse this application on highway grounds. Councillor Ripley stated that he also
supported the application and requested a site inspection.
Councillor M R E Birch referred to comments made by Mr Rampling regarding the
possible reduction of the speed limit to 40mph and suggested that this application be
deferred to await a decision on this matter. He also referred to Mr Rampling’s
concerns that the Parish Council’s comments were not included in the report when
they had been submitted several weeks previously.
The Chairman stated that there were a number of issues arising from discussion of
applications on the agenda which she would raise at a meeting of the Planning
Chairs.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
3 April 2008
The Senior Planning Officer stated that reports were prepared three weeks prior to
the meeting and reports could only be written based on the information available at
the time.
The Chairman requested that accident statistics be provided.
It was proposed by Councillor E Seward, duly seconded and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site
inspection by the Committee and that the local Member, Chairman of the
Parish Council and a representative of the Highway Authority be invited
to attend.
One Member voted against the proposition.
(239) COLBY - 20080167 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to provide
additional living accommodation; Sunnyside Farm Colby Corner for Mr and
Mrs Duncan
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports.
Councillor P J Willcox, the local Member, considered that the submitted plans were
difficult to understand and that it would be beneficial to visit the site.
It was proposed by Councillor P J Willcox, seconded by Councillor Miss L Walker and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site
inspection by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
(240) CROMER - 20071829 - Erection of single-storey side extension; Thornybank
Hall Road for Mrs V Lucking
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had confirmed that she would
provide an arboricultural method statement in respect of the foundations. Five letters
of objection had been received. He recommended approval of this application
subject to the submission of a full arboricultural method statement and the imposition
of appropriate conditions.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, stated that the main concern was the
flat roof. He considered that a pitched roof would be more in keeping with the area.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, seconded by Councillor P J
Willcox and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to negotiations for a pitched roof and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include the
submission of a full arboricultural method statement.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
3 April 2008
(241) CROMER - 20080117 - Erection of thirteen dwellings; land at Burnt Hills for A G
Brown Builders Ltd
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Ascough (objecting)
Mr Woodrow (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received which
reduced the scheme by one dwelling to thirteen dwellings. The access road had
been shortened and garden sizes had been increased. He recommended approval
of this application, as amended, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
including tree protection and landscaping.
Councillor N P Ripley, a local Member, stated that he welcomed new housing in
Cromer but was concerned at the introduction of two-storey dwellings in an area of
predominantly single-storey development. He requested that permitted development
rights be removed for any extensions to the dwellings to the rear of 205 Burnt Hills in
the event of approval of this application.
In response to concerns raised by the objector in respect of lack of notification of the
amended scheme, the Development Control Manager explained that officers used
their discretion with regard to readvertisement. Applications were readvertised in
cases where the impact on neighbours would increase. The amended scheme had
only recently been submitted and the impact on neighbours would be reduced.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan proposed approval of this application subject to
conditions to include the removal of permitted development rights for extensions.
This was seconded by Councillor Miss P E Ford.
Councillor M R E Birch considered that the interested parties should be notified of
changes and that in this case they had not been given time to consider the amended
plans and make representations. He considered that this application should be
readvertised and an apology sent to the neighbours. He considered that the
development should be single storey only. As an amendment, he proposed deferral
of this application to allow readvertisement of this application, which was seconded
by Councillor E Seward.
The Development Control Manager suggested that in the event of a deferral
Members may wish to visit the site. This was accepted by Councillor Birch and his
seconder as an addition to his amendment.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 5 votes to 4, and
on being put as the substantive proposition it was
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred:
1. to allow readvertisement of this application; and
2. to allow a site inspection by the Committee and that the local
Members and Town Mayor be invited to attend.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
3 April 2008
(242) CROMER - 20080308 - Erection of penthouse apartment; Marine View
Promenade for Mr P Mills
The Committee considered item 5 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported the concerns raised in 17 further letters of
objection that had been received in respect of this application. The comments of the
Town Council were awaited. She requested delegated authority to approve this
application subject to the receipt of the comments of the Town Council. She stated
that in the event of an objection from the Town Council the decision would be subject
to consultation with the local Members under the delegation protocol.
Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, stated that the view was one of the most
photographed and painted in North Norfolk and any development had to be
sympathetic to the building and the surrounding area. He considered that the
proposal was not sympathetic and that the stairway was out of keeping with the area.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, considered that it was important to
retain the view of The Crescent. He stated that there were many springs in the cliff
and was concerned that excavation of the cliff could undermine The Crescent. He
urged the Committee to refuse this application.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that Marine View was an
important unlisted building on the seafront. He outlined the history of the building
He considered that the increase in height of the building would not have much effect
on the views of The Crescent from the East Beach. He stated that all Conservation
Areas and towns changed and developed over time. He considered that the
proposal to an extent would rectify some of the poor design changes to this building
and be an overall improvement in terms of townscape and seafront. He stated that
the rear access walkway was the only poor element of the design but considered that
it was a worthwhile sacrifice for the improvements to the form and shape of the roof.
He referred to the Townscape Heritage Initiative which had provided a small grant for
the repair of this building. He considered that the proposal would safeguard the
building for future generations and would have a negligible impact on the setting of
the Conservation Area.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan supported the views of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager. She asked if there was any possibility of an alternative access
to the proposed apartment and referred to the concerns regarding excavation of the
cliff.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the amended plan indicated that the
excavation would be modest and conditions in respect of structural work would be
included in the event of approval of this application. The proposed stairway was the
only means of gaining access to the apartment. She understood that internal access
had been explored.
Councillor M R E Birch supported delegated approval of this application but
requested that the application be referred back to the Committee if the Town Council
objected.
Councillor E Seward proposed deferral of this application to await the views of the
Town Council and to seek advice in respect of the works to the cliff.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
3 April 2008
As an amendment, Councillor Miss P E Ford proposed delegated authority to
approve this application subject to the Coastal Engineer being consulted in respect of
the excavation of the cliff. This was seconded by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost on the casting vote of the
Chairman.
The proposition was put to the vote and on the casting vote of the Chairman it was
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to await the views of
the Town Council and to seek advice in respect of the works to the cliff.
(243) HANWORTH - 20071454 - Change of use of barns to provide caravan storage;
Glebe Farm White Post Road for Mr M Attew
The Chairman stated that all Members had received correspondence and had been
lobbied in respect of this application.
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Thaxton (Hanworth Parish Council)
Mr Attew (supporting)
The Development Control Manager reported that the Highway Authority required
improvements to the access off White Post Road and a condition in respect of the
provision of a visibility splay. He informed the Committee that this application did not
include landscaping but he understood that the applicant would landscape the site.
The Development Control Manager requested delegated authority to approve this
application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the imposition
of appropriate conditions to include the submission of satisfactory revised access
details, prior agreement of any external works to the buildings and a limit on the
maximum number of caravans to be stored in the buildings.
Councillor P J Willcox, the local Member, stated that this application made use of pig
sheds from an industry in serious decline. He considered that the Section 106
Agreement addressed some of the issues and requested that the covenants be
monitored. He asked if the agreement was watertight.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that the agreement appeared
to be watertight and it would be binding on any future owners of the site. Monitoring
would be carried out if the Committee requested it.
The Development Control Manager suggested that the membership register be
inspected biannually. Councillor Willcox accepted this suggestion.
Councillor Willcox requested that a screening condition be added as he was
concerned at the visual impact of the caravans within the open sheds. He requested
consultation regarding the treatment of the access.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
3 April 2008
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan did not consider that it was necessary to include
landscaping as a condition and referred to the applicant’s good reputation for
landscaping.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, seconded by Councillor Miss P E
Ford and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the completion of a Section 106
Agreement in respect of the use of the storage facility, submission of
satisfactory revised access details and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include prior agreement of external works to
the buildings and the maximum number of caravans to be stored in the
buildings.
(244) HONING - 20080209 - Continued siting of polytunnel; land at rear of Millbeck
White Horse Lane Briggate for Mr Turner and Miss Bullimore
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins stated that there had been confusion over the ward
boundaries. She had thought the site was within Worstead ward. However,
Councillor Miss L Walker, local Member for Honing, had agreed that she was happy
for Councillor Mrs Wilkins to speak as local Member on this application.
Councillor Mrs Wilkins vacated the Chair and spoke from the floor on this application.
Councillor E Seward (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair.
The Committee considered item 7 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Gardiner (Worstead Parish Council)
Mrs Downing (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the majority of the site was within Honing
and the remainder in Briggate.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the polytunnel would not require planning
permission if it were sited within the residential garden. However, the land was not
part of the residential garden. He stated that many of the issues that had been
raised by the objectors were not planning matters. No response had been received
from the Worstead Amenity Society.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that issues of land ownership
and civil disputes were not planning matters. The material issue was the visual
impact of the polytunnel.
In response to a comment by Mrs Gardiner, the Senior Planning Officer stated that
Worstead Parish Council had not been notified of the meeting as the application had
been registered as being in Honing.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins declared that she had been lobbied in respect of this
application. She stated that the site was in an Area of High Landscape Value and
she considered that the polytunnel was a blot on the landscape. She proposed a site
inspection. This was seconded by Councillor Miss L Walker.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
3 April 2008
Councillor Miss L Walker understood that the polytunnel was being used for storage
purposes.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold considered that an Enforcement Officer should be
requested to inspect the site as soon as possible with regard to possible storage use.
The Development Control Manager advised that this application should be
determined before considering enforcement action.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins stated that the site was close to nationally and
internationally designated wildlife sites and a survey undertaken some years ago had
shown ‘red book’ species to be present on the site. She requested that Natural
England be consulted. She considered that Local Plan policies 5, 8, 13, 19, 21, 31
and 33 were relevant in this case. She stated that the site was common land and
asked if it was a relevant consideration in this case.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that the site was not registered
or designated as common land. He reminded the Committee that the application
related to the polytunnel.
Members discussed the alleged storage use of the polytunnel.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Mrs B McGoun, seconded by
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan
That consideration of this application be deferred to establish the nature
of the use of the polytunnel.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 5 votes to 4 and
RESOLVED upon being put as the substantive proposition.
(245) HORNING - 20071734 - Erection of fifteen two-storey houses/flats and two
bungalows; Petersfield House Hotel 101 Lower Street for Cripps Development
Limited
Councillor Mrs B McGoun declared a personal and prejudicial interest as she was a
neighbour. She spoke on the application and then vacated the Council Chamber
during consideration of this matter.
The Committee considered item 8 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Pinder (objecting)
Mr Cripps (supporting)
The Chairman stated that all Members had received correspondence in respect of
this application.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received in
respect of the affordable units.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun, having declared an interest in this application, addressed
the Committee, following which she left the Council Chamber. She emphasised the
need for screening of the site.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
3 April 2008
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan considered that the amended design of the front
elevation of the affordable units was an improvement but was concerned at the
fenestration on the rear elevation. She stated that the car parking spaces for the flats
left little space for screening.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there was space for a substantial hedge
behind the car park but there was insufficient space for trees.
In response to concerns regarding the loss of protected trees, the Development
Control Manager stated that the Landscape Officer was satisfied with the
landscaping scheme as proposed. He explained the purpose of Tree Preservation
Orders. He stated that in this case the trees were subject to a Group Order which
safeguarded the visual amenity of the group as a whole. The Countryside Officer
had been involved in negotiations regarding the removal of some of the trees which
were covered by the Order and a replacement planting scheme.
In response to issues raised by Councillor Miss P E Ford, the Development Control
Manager explained that there was a requirement for the provision of a small play
area but the developer was unwilling to provide such an area within the scheme. He
had offered a contribution towards play provision within the village which was
acceptable to the Countryside and Parks Manager.
The Enabling Officer explained that the internal area of the affordable units was
within the acceptable range recommended by the Housing Corporation’s.
Councillor P J Willcox considered that a laurel hedge would provide better screening
than the proposed red cedar trees along the boundary. He also considered that the
proposed rooflights to the second bedrooms of the affordable flats should be
replaced by a small window.
It was proposed by Councillor P J Willcox, seconded by Councillor Miss P E Ford and
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the receipt of an amended plan
indicating a small window to serve the bedroom on the rear elevation of
the flats and a laurel hedge on the northern boundary, agreement on a
financial contribution towards village play facilities, the applicant
entering into a Section 106 Agreement to ensure the provision of
affordable housing and the imposition of conditions to include those
required by the Highway Authority, details of materials, tree protection,
landscaping and refuse storage.
(246) NORTHREPPS - 20071895 - Demolition of buildings and redevelop site for
residential development and retention of two units to include retail
convenience store; Shrublands Farm Church Street for Cherryridge Poultry
Limited
Councillor P J Willcox declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was an
outstanding creditor of the applicant and vacated the Council Chamber during
consideration of this matter.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
3 April 2008
Councillor Mrs A M Tillett declared a personal interest in this application as she had
been employed by the applicant and had been made redundant, but this did not
affect her judgement of this application. She was attending the meeting in her
capacity as local Member and spoke on this application.
The Committee considered item 9 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Houghton (supporting)
The Development Control Manager reported that a meeting had been arranged
between the Highway Authority, the applicants and their highway consultants and he
recommended deferral of this application pending that meeting. However, he
requested an indication from the Committee as to whether housing development was
acceptable in principle on this site.
Councillor Mrs A M Tillett, the local Member, outlined the views of the Parish Council.
She stated that she knew the site very well She stated that the business had been
the District’s second largest employer. She stated that there was a desperate need
for employment with career prospects in this part of the District, as well as a need for
affordable housing. Market housing was not required. She stated that the village
centre could only be reached by a narrow road network and there was an infrequent
bus service. The existing network could not cope with the number of vehicle
movements that would be generated by the proposal. She stated that many of the
employees of the former business shared transport, walked or cycled to the site. She
stated that there were problems with sewage in the village. However, there was a
reed bed sewage system on the site which could be used. She stated that the site
was a designated employment area, outside the development boundary, with poor
infrastructure and the proposal would create an imbalance in the community. She
considered that the financial situation of the applicant was no reason to approve this
application. She referred to the emerging policy and considered that this application
should be deferred pending the publication of the Inspector’s report on the Core
Strategy.
Councillor Miss L Walker considered that negotiation should include the provision of
a play area. She considered that the vehicle movements generated by the proposal
would be preferable to HGV movements, and the proposed shop would save a
number of vehicle movements.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan asked if consideration had been given to live/work
units. She considered that it was unrealistic to expect the whole site to be retained
for employment purposes.
The Development Control Manager stated that the applicants had made it clear that
they did not wish to include employment units other than a village shop.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun suggested that the site could be used for mixed residential
and employment development if one of the dwellings was removed and an alternative
access provided.
The Development Control Manager stated that this had not been raised with the
applicant but it would involve third party land. It would not solve the access or
infrastructure problems for the village as a whole.
Development Control Committee (East)
10
3 April 2008
Councillor E Seward referred to the acute need for affordable housing but recognised
that a scheme solely for affordable housing could not be progressed without funding
from the Housing Corporation and would not be in the developer’s interests. He
stated that this application should be determined on its merits.
It was proposed by Councillor E Seward, seconded by Councillor M R E Birch and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred as recommended to
allow negotiations to take place between the Highway Authority and the
developer.
(247) SUTTON - 20080297 - Erection of three dwellings and garages; Rustic House
The Street for Mr and Mrs P Cutting
The Committee considered item 10 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Bryant (Sutton Parish Council)
Ms Down (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council objected to this
application on grounds related to flooding, parking, access, overlooking,
overdevelopment and surface water management. Five additional letters of objection
had been received which raised similar concerns to those outlined in the report and
additional issues in respect of design and possible land raising.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Environment Agency had no objection
as, although the site was within an area shown as Zone 3 on the Flood Risk Maps,
the submitted Flood Risk Assessment had indicated that the site itself was in Flood
Zone 1. There was no need for a sequential test. The Environment Agency had
requested conditions.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had been in discussion with
the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) in respect of water management. The comments
of the IDB were awaited on this matter. The Highway Authority had no objection to
the scheme subject to the imposition of standard highway conditions.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to confirmation from the IDB that they are satisfied with the proposed water
management proposals and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, a local Member, requested a site visit. She stated that
nobody was aware that the site itself was Flood Zone 1. She requested that careful
consideration be given to the implications for drainage in Sutton.
Mr Goodwin, the IDB representative, outlined the work that had been carried out to
alleviate flooding in Sutton. He stated that this application provided an opportunity to
install a piped system which the IDB could adopt and maintain.
In answer to a question the Development Control Manager explained that the
Environment Agency flood risk maps were a starting point but it was generally
acknowledged more detailed site specific flood risk assessments could provide more
accurate information.
Development Control Committee (East)
11
3 April 2008
Mr Goodwin explained how flood risk assessments were drawn up. The flood risk
maps were drawn up using a different method. He stated that a few inches in height
could make a great deal of difference.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, seconded by Councillor Mrs B
McGoun and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site
inspection by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
(248) THORPE MARKET - 20080049 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at Sandpit
Lane for Mr and Mrs A Armstrong
The Committee considered item 11 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Ivins (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reminded the Committee that she had reported at the
last meeting that a letter had been received from a longstanding local resident stating
that he had never had any problems regarding access.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the local Member, supported this application. She
considered that the site was large enough for the proposed dwelling. She informed
the Committee that the applicant was willing to make any amendments that were
considered necessary and to make up and maintain Sandpit Lane to the standard of
The Green. She stated that there had been no recorded accidents at the entrance to
Sandpit Lane and there was an alternative access onto the A149. She proposed
approval of this application.
The Development Control Manager referred to the planning history of this site and
the highway objections.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun stated that the previous applications had been refused
prior to the imposition of the 30 mph speed limit. She seconded the proposal.
Councillor P J Willcox suggested that the access to the site itself be repositioned to
make it very difficult to turn in the Sandpit Lane direction and encourage the
occupiers to use the safer route.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Councillor Mrs B
McGoun and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to repositioning the access and subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Reasons: Since the previous planning application the speed limit
through the village has been reduced to 30 mph.
Development Control Committee (East)
12
3 April 2008
(249) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the officers’ reports.
(250) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the officers’ reports.
(251) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the officers’ reports.
(252) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the officers’ reports.
(253) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 16 of the officers’ reports.
(254) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 17 of the officers’ reports.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(256) INVITATION TO VISIT HMP LINDHOLME, LINCOLNSHIRE
The Development Control Manager reported that an invitation had been received
from the Ministry of Justice to visit Lindholme Prison in Lincolnshire in connection
with a planning application which was shortly to be submitted for a similar prison at
former RAF Coltishall. HMP Lindholme is a Category C prison on a former RAF
airbase. The visit would take place on 1 May 2008.
RESOLVED
That the Committee accepts the invitation to visit HMP Lindholme on 1
May 2008.
(257) OVERSTRAND - 20071678 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage;
Beckhythe Cottage, 3 High Street for Mr and Mrs Aylward
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an appeal had been lodged against nondetermination of this planning application. It was necessary to inform the Planning
Inspectorate of the decision the Committee would have made had it been within its
remit to determine this application.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the site was partly within the 100 year
erosion line. The application was undetermined pending clarity on the status for
planning purposes of the emerging Shoreline Management Plan.
Development Control Committee (East)
13
3 April 2008
The application was an outline application for a single-storey dwelling and garage.
The site was within the settlement boundary and in the Conservation Area. The trees
on the site were not covered by a Tree Preservation Order but were protected by
virtue of the Conservation Area designation. A number of trees would need to be
removed to facilitate this development.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the development was acceptable in principle
but there were issues in respect of the 100 year erosion line. The Head of Coastal
Strategy had advised that the access to the site would be lost within 60 years and the
whole site within 100 years.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended the Committee to resolve that it would
have refused this application on coastal erosion grounds and on grounds that a
dwelling in the position indicated would not enhance the character of the
Conservation Area.
The Development Control Manager stated that the applicant had not been invited to
attend the meeting as it was no longer an application that could be determined by
this Authority.
Councillor Mrs A M Tillett, the local Member, referred to the personal circumstances
of the applicant and urged the Committee to come to a decision.
Councillor B Smith referred to three planning applications in Mundesley which had
recently been refused on the basis of the Shoreline Management Plan.
The Development Control Manager stated that the Inspector would make an
independent decision on the merits of this case which would assist the Authority in
considering similar applications.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss L Walker, seconded by Councillor E Seward and
RESOLVED
That the Planning Inspector be informed that the Committee would have
refused this application on coastal erosion grounds, impact on trees
and on grounds that a dwelling in the position indicated would not
enhance the character of the Conservation Area.
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.00 pm, resumed at 1.35 pm and closed at 3.35
pm.
Development Control Committee (East)
14
3 April 2008